MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401672065 · doi:10.53063/synsint.2024.43193

Effect of chemical composition on fabrication of HAp-YSZ-Ti composites by spark plasma sintering method

2024· article· en· W4401672065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyyed Mohsen Fatemi, Iman Mobasherpour, Leyla Nikzad, Mansour Razavi, Leyla Karamzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthesis and Sintering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSinteringSpark plasma sinteringYttria-stabilized zirconiaTitaniumComposite materialThermal decompositionDecompositionCubic zirconiaFabricationComposite numberThermal stabilityCeramicMetallurgyChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the thermal behavior and sintering characteristics of hydroxyapatite (HAp) composites with yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) and titanium using the spark plasma sintering (SPS) method. This study uses simultaneous thermal analysis (STA) to investigate the decomposition behavior of composites. During the sintering process, data on displacement, temperature, time, and current were recorded. A key challenge encountered was the fracture and crushing of the samples after the sintering process. The results show that the decomposition temperature of pure HAp (sample 0-100) occurs around 800 °C. In contrast, adding 4% titanium and 6% YSZ to the sample composition increases the decomposition temperature above 1000 °C. A further increase in YSZ content, up to 31%, leads to a decomposition temperature of approximately 1000 °C. These findings show that the presence of titanium and its conversion to TiO2, together with YSZ, increases the stability of the composite materials and thus reduces HAp decomposition and affects the thermal behavior of the sintered samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynthesis and SinteringSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207